DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
ITW Australia Pty Ltd T/A ITW Proline
(B2019/410)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ITW Australia Pty Ltd T/A ITW Proline.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ITW Australia Pty Ltd T/A ITW Proline (Respondent).

[2] On 23 May 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Heath Lamaro of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR708630.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers v ITW Australia Pty Ltd T/A ITW Proline, the dispute arose from a proposed industrial action ballot by the employees of ITW Australia Pty Ltd, trading as ITW Proline. The National Union of Workers sought to conduct a ballot among the employees to determine their support for potential protected actions, including strikes or lockouts. ITW Australia opposed the ballot, leading to the matter being brought before the court. The central legal issue was whether the union had the right to conduct the ballot under the applicable industrial relations laws.

The court had to consider the scope and limitations of the union's rights to organise and conduct ballots for protected industrial action. It examined the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the implications of those provisions for the union's ability to organise a ballot. The court's analysis involved interpreting the legislative framework to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements. The court's decision hinged on whether the union's actions were in accordance with the legislative provisions and the procedural fairness expected under the law.

The court found that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. It held that the union had not followed the necessary procedures to ensure the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the legislative provisions. As a result, the court ruled in favour of ITW Australia, prohibiting the union from proceeding with the ballot. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when organising industrial action and highlights the need for unions to ensure their procedures align with the law. The court's judgment provides clarity on the procedural steps required for a lawful ballot, reinforcing the principles of procedural fairness in industrial relations.

National Union of Workers v ITW Australia Pty Ltd T/A ITW Proline

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established